Would you watch a Red Dwarf "reboot" with an all female cast?

[Warbodog]

It’s easy to forget now how cagey the show was about even acknowledging the idea of previous Doctors or past history.

The sketches of past Doctors half way through series three felt like a massive acknowledgement at the time, especially with dubious McGann being so prominent. Come series 10’s opener, you’ve got things like a random Susan photo, casual background Movellans and literal throwaway vintage screwdrivers and it’s just trivia.

[Warbodog]

That came across like I was disagreeing, but I was supporting the really delayed watershed moment.

[Dave]

Yep, I remember the sketchbook (and the montage in The Next Doctor) being massive deals at the time.

Then you get the montage towards the end of The Eleventh Hour which I think really opened the floodgates.

It will be interesting to see if Chibnall dials that stuff back.

[International Debris]

I’m hoping Chibnall doesn’t do so much of that, though. The classic series rarely did, and it makes little callbacks feel special when they happen. Moffat threw in so many little bits in his run (four episodes in which we see every past Doctor) that it began to get a bit weighed down by its past.

[Quinn: Clochebusters World Champion]

To be fair to Moffat, a lot of his writing of the Doctor (both Matt and Capaldi) is an exploration of who the Doctor is. 11 coming to terms with the Time War, then realising he didn’t actually slaughter two races, and Capaldi trying to figure out if he really is good etc, that it makes sense to look back and see those that came before them.

Granted he was really only doing it to be able to get fanboy and make loads of references more than casual fans would get, but then when you’re writing on a show 50 years old, celebrating that history feels right too.

I’d like to see Chibnall step away from it a little, but not ignore it completely and use it when its right to use it. Push forward but not forget the past completely.

[Flap Jack]

In any sense that would give the term any kind of meaning, Doctor Who 2005 is not a reboot.
We have a word for what it is, and that word is “revival”. Why ruin the meaning of “reboot” by using it to mean that?

Doctor Who absolutely is a revival, but a revival is just a more specific type of reboot. You might as well say “Doctor Who is not a TV Show, it’s a Sci-Fi Drama”.

You can fairly point out that this definition robs the term “reboot” of some inherent specificity that would make it more useful… and yeah, of course it does. It’s an overused media buzzword, so it just is used in a very broad way, and therefore has a very broad definition. Nothing really we can do about that…

To put it another way, if the Doctor Who revival had occurred in 2015 rather than 2005 – and all of its content was otherwise exactly the same – then you can bet that every single major entertainment news outlet would call it a reboot. Guaranteed.

I’d also disagree that this makes the term useless. A “reboot” can just mean any TV/Film series which comes back after a significant absence, to be outright remade or just majorly retooled, and that’s OK. It’s good to have umbrella terms for things.

[Pete Part Three]

There, you see; you all groaned when Jawscvmcdia posted another stupid hypothetical question with a trolling statement, but it sparked an interesting discussion.

[Moonlight]

But is Series VIII a reboot?

No, because a continuation of the same show with the same cast cannot by definition be a reboot. The internet loves to misuse the word “reboot”, because it can’t fucking process the idea that The X-Files or Mystery Science Theater or Red Dwarf could be simply be coming back to do their respective 11th season/series a decade plus after the original run ended.

I mean the word _literally_ means to start over. You’d think it wouldn’t be too hard for fuckhead journalists to realize they’re constantly using it in situations that are quite literally the opposite of rebooting a show.

[Moonlight]

I mean Mystery Science Theater is probably not the best example because the rotating cast means the show is effectively if not literally on its third reboot, but it fit in with the “11th season” pattern.

[GlenTokyo]

It’s just a boot. You’ve turned it back on after it was off.

[Hamish]

I do hope you realize I was being flippant Katydid.

[Moonlight]

I do. I just had two cents about reboots.

[Flap Jack]

I’m not sure if the people on the “it can’t be a reboot if it’s in continuity with the old version” side of things are certain that’s the definition, or would just prefer it to be that.

Like, “that’s not what it means – it’s just that the media keeps misusing it all the time!” is not a great counter-argument, because as I said, language is defined by usage. If enough people keep using the word “selfie” to describe photos that also include people other than the person taking it, for example, then the definition will broaden to accommodate that.

It’s not like “reboot” is a word the entertainment news media are appropriating either. That word – just in this context, obviously – pretty much only exists so that the media can use it to describe the phenomenon of shelved TV/film series making unexpected returns. It’s THEIR term, more or less.

I think if the definition of a reboot were genuinely as strict as some folk here are saying, then when people see a headline like “There’s a Buffy Reboot in the Works!”, they wouldn’t feel the need to get clarification about whether it was going to be in continuity or not, just as they wouldn’t need to if the headline read “There’s a Buffy Remake in the works!” or “Buffy’s Coming Back For Season 8!”.

[Moonlight]

If I read a headline that said a show was rebooting, I would assume it was rebooting. I would not expect them to mean a revival with the same cast and crew, because that’s not what a reboot is. The media conflating “reboot” and “revival” just makes things more confusing, because they’re two entirely separate kinds of bringing back a show.

They’re basically polar opposites – one a brand new fresh start and the other a continuation – and I don’t think it’s pedantic to expect people to differentiate between the two.

[Dave]

Which is why Doctor Who 2005 is such a problematic example, because it manages to do both.

[Lily]

I’ve never watched Buffy, but if there was a reboot I’d expect; different cast, same characters, story going back to the beginning and retelling of origins etc.

If on the other hand there was a revival it’d be same cast or handing down to new generation, previous canon to be maintained, new stories going forward.

But I’m not a film/tv buff, so I don’t know anything.

[Pete Part Three]

>I’ve never watched Buffy

You really should.

[Ben Paddon]

I used to be quite anal about the way people used the word “reboot,” until I realized it didn’t actually bloody matter – a reboot can be a revival, a remake, a ground-up reimagining of a premise. I’ve no qualms referring to modern Doctor Who or Dave era Dwarf as reboots.

Language is fluid and words change depending upon usage. We lost the battle when the definition of “literally” got amended in the dictionary to incorporate its frequent figurative use in modern parlance. It’s over. Let it go.

[Flap Jack]

I do agree that when people here “reboot” they probably do think of the “completely fresh start” type before they think of the “direct continuation after a significant amount of time has passed” type, but there’s still a level of uncertainty, and the definition still absolutely covers both.

You just need to google a phrase like “x files reboot” to make that clear.

Even if you’re sure that a reboot can’t be a direct continuation, Doctor Who (as Dave said) is a clear example of how “revival” and “reboot” are in no way mutually exclusive, and there’s always going to be edge cases.

[Flap Jack]

*clears throat* uh, I meant “hear”, naturally.

[Ben Saunders]

Language is fluid but I would much prefer if words meant what they actually fucking meant, tbh.

[Dave]

They do, by definition.

[GlenTokyo]

I’m going to start saying Red Dwarf is a period drama because language is fluid.

[Dave]

It’s not a period drama, it’s a period sitcom. It would be a period drama if it didn’t have any laughs.

(So maybe Series VIII etc. etc.)

[Lily]

The thing is that reboot is a pretty modern term with regards to entertainment. It’s only come into use the last few years when the film industry kept rehashing the same super-hero films over and over.

If you look at at reporting in 2005 they all speak of Doctor Who’s ‘return’, which seems a more accurate term to me. Other terms used at the time were revival and resurrection.

I guess it boils down to ‘reboot’ sounding all sexy and new, while ‘return’ or ‘revival’ lingers on the death of the original run of a show. Semantics aren’t sexy though.

[Flap Jack]

“Language is fluid” doesn’t mean “Words have no consistent meaning at all, then???”. I don’t need to explain this, because it’s obvious.

The evolution of “reboot” is interesting, though. It reminds of how originally “binge-watching” only described quickly watching all of a TV show which was meant to be watched one episode a week, in the era where DVD box sets where the big thing. But then Netflix Instant came along, and their shows were actually designed to be watched immediately one episode after the other. So now “binge-watching” means whenever you watch a whole TV series/season in one go, regardless of whether this is actually excessive behaviour.

Just as with “reboot”, you may not like the way its definition has broadened through common usage, but them’s the breaks. :-P

[bloodteller]

Binge-watching is awful, I think. I once spontaneously decided to binge-watch all of the Pink Panther films. By the end of the second one I was already getting a bit tired.By the time Joanna Lumley showed up I was feeling physically sick from boredom. I don’t get how anyone can watch all of anything at once-even if you like it a lot, isn’t it better to take a break every one in a while?

[bloodteller]

The one saving grace was that in the last few films, William Hootkins (!) showed up and I briefly had a pretty good time as he’s a very funny actor. Still not worth watching the entire film series all at once

[Dave]

I can’t binge-watch anything, it gets too boring and samey, even the really good stuff. The most I ever managed was getting through four or five episodes of ’24’ a night with the old DVD boxsets, and that’s largely due to the cliffhanger nature of the show’s episode transitions.

I find with Netflix shows that are all dumped at once, I tend to naturally watch them around one or two episodes a week. It becomes overkill otherwise.

[GlenTokyo]

I don’t think binge watching means watching it all in one go. I think it just means watching a lot of something in one, or fewer than however many episodes there are, sittings as it always has. That could be all of something but I don’t think the meaning has changed to mean that exclusively.

[Dave]

Yeah, as with many terms I think it can be used in different ways – sometimes it’s used to mean watching an entire series that’s dumped all at once, and sometimes to mean watching a bunch of episodes in quick succession (but not necessarily a whole series).

I think the latter meaning was maybe more common when that kind of behaviour was more unusual – when people didn’t tend to watch lots of episodes of a show in quick succession. Now that that’s a pretty standard viewer habit (thanks to DVD boxsets and streaming services) I think that meaning has maybe become a bit less common.

[International Debris]

I can be quite a binger when it comes to serialised drama, can easily watch nine or ten in a row without a hint of fatigue. Comedy doesn’t work as well – I’ve often done a full six part series upon getting a DVD, but unless it’s a brand new show to me, I’m usually out of laughs by the final episode, whether it’s funny or not.

My dad and I once watched all four series of Blackadder in a day, sort of by accident.

[Quinn: Clochebusters World Champion]

I just rewatched all of the first series of Dexter yesterday out of sheer boredom. I did stop a couple of times, to eat and shower etc, but I went straight back to it. Even though I’ve seen it 3 times before, I just wanted to get to the end.

I’ve always been like that with shows. Ever since I got a DVD player and boxsets. My first was X Files, then Stargate, then TNG, DS9 amd Voyager (though they were VHS I bought ridiculously cheap from a listing in the local paper). Once I start on a series I won’t stop until I’m at the end. So now I’ll likely watch all 8 series of Dexter even though the last few are rubbish.

I quite often watch the entirety of a new Netflix show the day, or the day after release. Though I did struggle through the new series of OITNB because it was a bit dull. Only finished that on Saturday.

I actually find it weird watching more than 1 show at a time now. I tried juggling a rewatch of House, with watching Handmaids Tale and the latest OITNB just couldn’t really do it. So finished off House, finished off first series of Handmaids then finished Orange.

I’ll watch something else if I’m watching it weekly, or I just want a quick 30mins of something before bed, but otherwise I tend to stick to the one thing.

[Ben Saunders]

I used to binge watch stuff a hell of a lot, but nowadays three episodes of Star Trek in one day feels excessive

[Ben Saunders]

All i know of William Hootkins is he played Dingodile in Crash Bandicoot 3, so he’s alright in my books

[bloodteller]

He was also Porkins in Star Wars- A New Hope

[GlenTokyo]

I can binge TNG, VOY and ENT easily (skipping a few terrible episodes, like when Janeway turns into a lizard and fucks Tom Paris who is also a lizard etc) but Discovery is a bit hard going.

[Dave]

I’m not much of a Star Trek fan in general but I liked Discovery – I enjoyed the fast pace and willingness to blaze through plots that would have taken up a whole season of some other shows.

[GlenTokyo]

I watched Discovery despite the first episode being terrible, and was somewhat rewarded in the middle, but overall I feel like there’s more to not like than like.

It’s written like they think they’re Aaron Sorkin, and are so clever and it’s so deep and layered but really it’s not very clever, obvious, and shallow. Also Michael Burnham, she’s like a Vulcan who’s repressed every emotion but ‘slightly pissed off’. She just seems horrible to know, whereas with Spock, Tuvoc, T’Pol it was believable that people would befriend them.

Good points, Saru or whatever his name is, and Jason Isaacs, and it might mean other Star Trek series get made.

[Dave]

Yeah, I can’t really disagree with you on any of that. The shallowness is part of the appeal to me though, it feels like a silly romp a lot of the time. Which is maybe part of why it doesn’t feel like good Star Trek to longtime fans.

[Ben Saunders]

Whatever happens in Discovery, it cannot be anywhere near as bad as The Omega Glory from the original series.

[Warbodog]

I’m glad you didn’t go for Spock’s Brain, that hilarious B-movie that makes the world better.

[Ben Saunders]

Spock’s Brain is excellent, in that it’s pretty shit, but the B-Movie feel to it is groovy. I think the ending is actually shit, though. Controversial opinion but Spock’s Brain is better than The Trouble With Tribbles

[Plastic Percy]

I’m glad that Discovery is doing it’s own thing. Like Doctor Who, the argument should never be they should do something just ‘because that’s how they did it (thirty) years ago’.

Also, Clem Fandango!

[Ben Paddon]

Controversial and objectively wrong opinion from Ben Saunders, there.

[Hamish]

> the argument should never be they should do something just ‘because that’s how they did it (thirty) years ago’.

Which does beg the question about why they still felt the need to stand on the legacy of a show from thirty years ago rather than starting fresh though. There is still plenty of room for original science fiction television today.

I am not going to comment specifically on Discovery as I have not seen it, but your argument does seem a bit like having one’s cake and eating it too.

[Dave]

The ending of the first season of Discovery makes that point particularly well.

[Ridley]

>Which does beg the question about why they still felt the need to stand on the legacy of a show from thirty years ago rather than starting fresh though. There is still plenty of room for original science fiction television today.

Yeah but getting people to sign up to CBS All Access for a brand new show is a harder sell.

Bring back Quantum Leap, Highlander, and do The Princess Bride as a TV series. *bangs drum*

[Ben Saunders]

1) They like the idea of Star Trek and want to do something with that universe
2) Marketing purposes/brand recognition

Obviously when Star Trek fans tune into a new Star Trek show they expect to see something that at least feels a bit like what came before, with similar aesthetics, feelings and morality, etc. Otherwise there would be no point calling it Star Trek, other than to sell it. The same way that when somebody buys a Metallica album they don’t want to be hit with Queen, even if they might like Queen. All of the other Star Trek shows have managed to broadly feel like Star Trek, but I’ve yet to make my way to Discovery, so can’t really judge.

[International Debris]

Which does beg the question about why they still felt the need to stand on the legacy of a show from thirty years ago rather than starting fresh though.

They like the existing universe and feel new, interesting stories could be told within that framework?

[Author]

Posts